Such an outsider, ‘cause in my heart, I don’t believe in anything.

Through definition as a petite sceptique, I have a very cynical nature. However, sometimes my scepticism far surpasses people’s expectations. If I want to enter an argument with somebody, I usually just have to mention my disbelief in one of two things: evil or love.

I don’t believe in the existence of evil because I think that everything that can be perceived as evil by some can be alternatively viewed by others. To try and explain this analogically, I have a serious (and of course, utterly irrational) phobia of fish. Were someone to show me a picture of a fish, I would find it extremely scary. If Malia looked at the same image, she would be wholly unperturbed. Just because I find the picture scary, it doesn’t mean that it is; that’s just my perception of it. Similarly, someone may see a certain act as being one of moral evil, but there is undoubtedly someone with the opposite viewpoint to deny this.

“But what about Hitler?” people always ask. “He was evil.”

Unbelievable though it may seem to some, I do not agree with that statement. I would like to clarify that I do not condone Hitler’s actions towards the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, mentally disabled, or any of the other ‘minorities’ whose deaths he ordered in WWII, and as a pacifist I think he went about things in entirely the wrong way, but I do not think he was evil per se, just misguided. I realise that that sounds incredibly cold and harsh, but I shall continue: Hitler believed he was doing the right thing for Germany; he believed that what he was doing was good. Whilst he may have commanded the occurrence of many atrocities, he did not do so believing that what he was doing was bad, and it is for this reason that I would not describe his actions as evil: like the Buddhist principle of kusala or akusala being based on cetana, I think that for something to be evil, it would have to have been done with purely ill intention. Evil, as far as I am concerned, is premeditated inconsiderate action based on negative desires, with no immediate wholesome consequences and no intention of anything good coming from the action at any point thereinafter. To my knowledge, something fulfilling this criteria has not yet happened, therefore as of yet, I do not believe in evil. Theists often talk of ‘natural evil’ – things such as tornadoes and earthquakes – which have dreadful outcomes, but nature cannot be premeditated, and even if it can be predicted, it cannot be prevented, so I also disregard this classification of evil.

My scepticism regarding love is much simpler, but people don’t like to hear it: I think that the concept of love is one created by people to make life seem more positive. Though it is obviously not only atheists who believe in love, atheists have more to gain from the concept: many theists believe that after this life they will have eternal peace in some afterlife, and therefore have something positive to look forward to. For an atheist, with no cheerful ‘life after death’ to look forward to, actual life can be seen as quite depressing: from an existential viewpoint, there is no point to our presence here on earth and nothing positive to motivate us to keep on going. With the idea of love being so widely accepted, everybody can look forward to finding ‘that special someone’ with whom everything will ‘just click’ and happiness will ensue. I think it is no coincidence that the verb which is used for the creation of romantic feelings is also one used for deception: one can fall in love, and fall for a trick. Both require the victim to be gullible and both can cause the victim to feel humiliated. However, when one is experiencing ‘love’, they are doing what almost every female-orientated piece of media (and many which are male-orientated too) tells them they should do – ensuring that they are not alone in their life. People in today’s culture are expected to fall in love with someone, and the extent of society’s infatuation with romance has led to the indoctrination of children as well as those who are older – infants of very young ages come home from school announcing excitedly that they have got a boyfriend or girlfriend, and even if to them all it means is that somebody will give them a crisp for free at playtime, they are still being led to believe that this is how their lives should be: constantly intertwined with another’s. With this constant pressure to be romantically attached to somebody, and the inherent desire possessed by many individuals to conform to the expectations of society, people will decide that they have fallen in love with someone, when in actuality, they have found somebody with whom they would feel acceptable to conform to societal requirements and not be ‘lonely’. Love, therefore, is a manmade concept to encourage people to feel positive and happy, and has the unfortunate repercussions of damaging the self-esteem and general well-being of anyone not ‘in love’ in a manner not unlike the idea of self-fulfilling prophecy – people are told that they cannot be happy without a romantic partner, so when they have no romantic partner, they feel unhappy. Love is like an institutionalised religion, but with far fewer non-believers.

~Tamsyn.

For this I pray: we’ve got to shake the faith.

I am an atheist, but I have often considered which religion I regard most highly. Were I to have to become religious myself, Buddhism would be my first choice, due to its lack of a deity, but if this were not an option, perhaps due to the fact that it is regarded by some as more of a philosophy than a religion, then I would probably become Christian, simply because I have attended Christian schools and have therefore been most indoctrinated by Christian teachings.

Christianity has several branches, though, so I still have choices. In the most basic form, the options are Catholicism or Protestantism, the former being the more traditional form of Christianity and the latter being a more modern version. As somebody who is usually very open-minded (there are exceptions), it would seem that Protestantism would be the more appropriate choice to make, as Protestants are typically more lenient with their rules. However, I have fundamental issues with Protestantism: the Bible is their guide, as it is in Catholicism, but Protestant beliefs change to fit the times, whereas Catholic principles remain pretty much constant. This seems to be positive regarding the Protestants – indeed, I consider it better that things like the ordination of female bishops are now permitted in Anglican churches, in keeping with the modern views on equality, but I think it goes against the faith: Protestantism, to me, seems to be a case of:

“Here’s our holy book, everything it says is right.”

x years later:

“This bit isn’t actually quite right.”

Another x years later:

“We’ve changed this bit too.”

A further x years later:

“We’ve also changed our minds about this part.”

Catholicism, on the other hand, says, “Here is our book, these are our beliefs, and we’re sticking to them!” and whilst some of the views may not fit with the times, at least they are consistent. I have more respect for the people who follow what their Bible says as much as they can, rather than those who follow the Bible’s guidance to some extent and then do other things simply to fit in with society. I see Catholicism as Christians who truly believe in their faith, and want to adhere to the rules as closely as they can, but Protestantism, I think, is religion for cowards: they simply try to uphold moral values typical of most people in modern society and give it a religious title, meaning that they get to go to heaven at the end of it.

Whilst I may disagree with some of the viewpoints held by Catholics, I think they are the better, more real religion. For this reason, if I had to choose a faith to follow, Catholicism would be it. However, most definitely now and in the foreseeable future, I think atheism suits me perfectly.

~Tamsyn.